Three 2.5" SAS Drives: Enterprise Data Giants, Compared

Comparison Table, Test Configuration, And Transfer Diagrams

Comparison Table

ManufacturerHitachiSeagateSeagate
FamilyUltrastar C10K600Constellation.2Savvio 10K.5
ModelHUC106060CSS600ST91000640SSST9900805SS
Form factor2.5“2.5“2.5“
Capacity600 GB1000 GB900 GB
RPM10 000 RPM
7200 RPM10 000 RPM
Further capacities
450, 300 GB250, 500 GB600, 450, 300 GB
Platter33
3
Cache64 MB64 MB64 MB
InterfaceSAS 6Gb/sSAS 6Gb/sSAS 6Gb/s
Operating temperature
5-55 °C5-60 °C5-55 °C
No-load power according to spec
3.1 W3.9 W4.4 W
No-load power according to test
3.6 W4.3 W5.0 W
Operating shock (2 ms, Read)
60 G70 G40 G
Warranty5 years
5 years5 years


Test Setup

System Hardware
HardwareDetails
CPUIntel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield) (45 nm, 2.66 GHz, 8 MB L3 Cache)
Motherboard
(Socket 1366)
Supermicro X8SAX, Revision: 1.1, Chipset: Intel X58 + ICH10R, BIOS: 1.0B
RAM3 x 1 GB DDR3-1333 Corsair CM3X1024-1333C9DHX
HDDSeagate NL35 400 GB, ST3400832NS, 7200 RPM, SATA 1.5Gb/s, 8 MB Cache
Storage Controller
HighPoint Rocket 620, Marvell 88SE9128
PSUOCZ EliteXstream 800 W, OCZ800EXS-EU
Benchmarks
Performance Measurements
h2benchw 3.13
PCMark Vantage 1.0
I/O PerformanceIOMeter 2006.07.27
Fileserver-Benchmark
Webserver-Benchmark
Database-Benchmark
Workstation-Benchmark
Streaming Reads
Streaming Writes
System-Software & Drivers
Operating System
Windows Vista Ultimate SP1


Transfer Diagrams

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
2 comments
    Your comment
  • compton
    Toms with some more review niceness. Thanks for another interesting article. I don't think mechanical storage is going anywhere soon. For better and worse we'll still have it around for a long, long time to come. Even when SSDs hit that magical speed/capacity/cost point to be ubiquitous for mainstream consumers, enterprises will still need HDDs as part of their storage needs. HDDs are at least a known quantity that are still getting better.
    2
  • bit_user
    3rd paragraph: "have to be taken into considered". You also didn't mention capacity and cost/GB, where mechanical disks still reign supreme.

    Also, why not benchmark a 3.5" disk, but only use the outer portion. If both that and a 2.5" have the same density and rotational velocity, then the 3.5" should win due to higher I/O speeds resulting from higher linear velocity.
    0